Let's play a game II... Titus' turn

James and I talked a bit about this, so I guess his views may mirror what I write here. We'll have to see...

What were Reagan's greatest FAILURES as a President?

I will list them in no particular order, as I understand them to be, okay? Feel free to comment at your ease.

1. For a President that stated time and time again that he would NEVER negotiate with terrorists, I feel Reagan did a whole lot of just THAT... negotiating with terrorists. Delaying the release of the hostages until AFTER the inauguration borders on criminal. Then selling them (the Iranians) weapons ILLEGALLY only 3 years later... wow. Then there was the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983. After those 200+ Marines died by a murderous "jihadist" attack, the US had withdrawn ALL military presence from the country. I think the message sent with that action was "You win... we quit" in Lebanon, and the terrorists maintained a war of terror against our "ally" every day since. Finally, let's not forget that the FIRST US President to officially recognize the PLO as a legitimate elected governing body, and recognize Yassir Arrafat as its leader, was Ronald W. Reagan on Dec 14, 1988.
2. Ryan only recently beat me up for acting shamefully by suggesting that I MIGHT support Obama in the primary election, based (partially) on a President's power to appoint judges. I submit that another failure of the Reagan years was the appointment of O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. What two justices have gone further to "legislate from the bench" than those two? None, in my book. This is a legacy that America has had to live with for 20 years and more, and the precedents these two judges set in their actions and findings will continue to plague America for decades to come. I also feel his lack of support in defending his Bork appointment has had echoes down the decades as well... we haven't seen a President DEFEND an appointment since until Bush Jr. took office, and I think the reason for that is the precedent that Reagan set in letting a Democratic Congress hound him into making a different choice.
3. (NOTE: This is James' input... not entirely mine, but I agree 100%) Reagan's 1st Inaugural Address pledged "...to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people." Stirring words, but he forgot them when he forced all 50 states to raise the drinking age to 21, or risk the loss of ALL Federal highway funding... even if the states expressly held that the determination of the legal drinking age was a STATE RIGHT.

Gotta cut this short for now... more later, I hope.

Take two on this post...

Ryan asked me after the debate who I was voting for. To spare everyone the wordy conversation, it boiled down to "I don't know yet," because none of these candidates in any party answered my questions. So Ryan wanted me to post the questions. If the blog eats this post I'm going to have issues.

1) What is your measurable and specific plan to remove our need to import energy? (This covers a broad range of issues from the manufacture of electricity to the importation of oil.)

2) Your measurable and specific plan for securing our borders?

3) What do you intend to do about China, Russia and India and their growing dominance in energy and manufacturing?

4) What is your plan concerning infrastructure within the US? (Rail, airports, highways, etc)

5) What do you intend to do about social security and universal healthcare?

There it is. Notice how I'm not asking about the current state of the economy? Because once this election is over the economy will do fine no matter who wins. It is the uncertainty of elections that triggers this recession fever. Didn't ask about the war either because if someone says "peace with honor" I'm hitting the panic button. They stay as long as they have to.

What would you guys ask?

Let's play a game... Part II

Got this idea from Bill Bennett this morning on the radio...

We've all heard Ryan spew out his adoration and praise of everything "Reagan" more times than any of us can count. Some is justified, I don't deny... other portions are perhaps slanted by youthfull idealism. Much the same way Ryan delights in ripping on OUR favorite Presidents with contempt and disdain.

Bennett was making the case that the greatest service historians can do for the Founding Fathers was to show them to be MORTAL and FALLIBLE rather than superhuman thinkers without flaw or reproach. What is the greater acheivement? To have suceeded so wildly as a simple "mortal", or to have accomplished the same by "infallible" supermen?

So, the game today?

What were Reagan's greatest FAILURES in his 8-year term of office?

Surely, not even Ryan can suggest that Reagan enjoyed the ONLY Administration that DIDN'T have some failures to balance out success? What were they? How do they effect us today? How have they impacted our society and the world at large? How do they compare to the failures of Presidents since? Or previous?

We have ALL (Republican and Democrat alike) written volumes on the failings of Carter, Clinton, FDR, Nixon, Johnson... nearly any PotUS you might care to name, we've ripped 'em. And while I admit to having "critiqued" Reagan more than once (and ALWAYS elloquently), I will play this game as objectively and honestly as I can... I promise.

So, who's first?

I JUST WANTED TO STIR THE SH*T...

...not have to beat down the pile with a stick! LOL!

Look... my ability to recognize Presidential ability not withstanding, I wanted to make a quick point.

On my way home from another screwed up shift at the casino last night, I heard Hillary state (from FL, it seems) that she is more than willing to go to court to get the 57 or so FL delegates seated at the Convention. Little wonder, I guess... she won the state, which means she gets ALL the delegates.

Now, picture this...

She goes to court, and wins, and the DNC HAS to sit the 57 delegates for Clinton. Doesn't that give Obama and Edwards the right to say "HEY! If I thought it would have come to this, I'd have campaigned in Florida... and in Michigan, damn it! I want a DO OVER!" HUGE mess, and the potential for a HUGE split in the party base come November.

OR...

She goes to court and LOSES. No delegates sit at the convention from FL, and Obama wins the nomination. What are the chances that the majority of Hillary supporters are STILL pissed off about Gore in '00, and will chant and rave phrases like "Cheater!" or "We've not been heard!" What are the chances that her supporters will try to do what Dean did and carry on a "write in" campaign, thus dividing the Dem vote even further?

Where is the win for her here? ONLY if she doesn't get the delegates sat, AND wins the nomination anyway. That is the ONLY possbile way this doesn't come back to haunt them.

Just my musings...

Fascism... defined

First off... this is a great post. While you, in the past, have espoused the real genius of the Bund as a "meeting" of like minds, I think it is the ability... nay, the opportunity we provide for open, honest discussion and debate. You cited sources and quotes, clearly defining what was your opinion and what wasn't... a great post.

Fascism. Ambiguous term, indeed... but not as undefined as you made it out to be. I think there are facts and facets of "fascism" that are universal in their application to the term. I won't delve into these terms yet... I wanted to hit on another point first.

Communism. Communism in its most extreme political form (political, as opposed to the much smaller group dynamic seen in such organizations as religious sects, small clan groups or tribal gatherings, et cetera) does share many features with fascism... but the two are not interchangable terms.

One facet of fascism that I think is universal, when discussing national or trans-national politics, is corporatism. As you said in your post, one could draw the line by making the analogy that "communism is business controled by the state" and "fascism is the state's control of business". A far better analogy than I think you know.

Take the example of nearly any European fascist state from the last century, and you will see each one has a disproportionate degree of industrial control lying with national, industrial cartels. The control of these cartels (called "corporations" in my poli-sci texts) lies within the controling party of the fascist state... but only through the leaders of those cartels being recruited (or founding) members of the fascist organization. This membership in the controling group (we'll call it the "party", for ease of use) allows nearly unlimited ability to control markets and resources for the expressed profit of the elite, and not for the state or organization.

This "corporatism" that is a defining (in my opinion) fact of fascism can also be seen in societies that are NOT traditionally seen as fascist. The mind-set of many post-war Japanese corporations that the individual worker is simply a small part of a greater group, and that all considerations for that individual are secondary to the considerations of the company is an EXCELLENT example of "fascist" thinking outside of national politics. No promise was made to the worker of better wages, or improved conditions... only the assurance that they could be satisfied knowing the "company" is doing well.

In the more familiar setting of Nazi Germany shows us that such cartels as Krupp, DWM (manufacturer of the Luger pistol), Junker, Volkswagon, Messershmidtt AG all made the owners and shareholders (literally) BILLIONS of marks over 15 short years... and ultimately utter ruin with the loss of the war. This is in direct contradiction of the intent and direction of communism, as it is ultimately understood to be defined.

Another facet of fascism that can't be ignored (at least European fascism) is its direct, stated and unending opposition to "communism" in any form. Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia, Germany ALL made membership in the Communist Party a crime punishable by death.

I'm not arguing that Stalin enjoyed similar control and command as Hitler... certainly he did, and for far longer. But the systems are not the same, and they can't be seen as simply different faces of the same coin... unless that coin is called "totalitarianism" or "dictatorship". Nothing even remotely resembeling the Volksluhnd tradition of "nationalism" ever existed in the USSR. The slogans painted on walls and billboards across the USSR read "Slava KPSU!" (Glory to the Communist Party!)... not "Glory to Russia!" In a state where more than 65 distinct languages and 200 dialects were spoken and read, I just don't think that kind of exclusionism was applicable.

One final point...

I think it is more important to understand what "fascism" promotes, rather than what it opposes. Fascism promotes aggressive militaristic expansionism at all costs. It promotes ONE social group (ethnic, religious, linguistic, et al) above all others. It promotes complete and utter submission to central authority... usually epitomized in one person. It promotes the utter hatred of an outside social group (again... ethnic, religious, racial, et al) as a focus of policy and national interest. It promotes the agendas and programs of the controling authority through the methodical manipulation of information on every level, denying (in most cases) any access to free and open sources of information. It promotes the use of ALL resources (natural, economic, social, military, et al) for the unequivocal GAIN of the controling elite, and NOTHING ELSE.

Without these facets of operation or policy, I fail to see where the erm "fascism" can rightly be employed... unless it is used only as a derogatory statement.

What is fascism?

I'm serious, how would you define it? I have always had a curiously tough time giving a specific definition for this. I thought it was just me, but then I stumbled upon something. In a book I'm currently reading the author poses this question and then cites several leading historians from one prestigious university after another, each with a separate and even different definition. He notes that in most scholarly works on the issue their is a pre forma announcement, "Such is the welter of divergent opinion surrounding the term" typed just before the given definition. Dr. Roger Griffin in his book The Nature of Fascism defines it as " a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." Ya, and the googlehyme is framed up by the ramestein...? But that's just it, we all recognize "aspects" associated with the term given our understanding of the Third Reich. Militarism, hostile expansionism, ultra-patriotism and it goes on. But again I return to Soviet Russia, don't those phrases describe their particular brand of communism as much as it describes Nazi fascism? Dr. Roger Eatwell defines it as a "form of thought that preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way." German social scientist Ernst Nole has a six-point definition called the "Fascist Minimum" that attempts to define the phrase by what it opposes. In fact, what most of these historians and scientists have agreed upon is that there is no one single agreed upon definition. The layman's response typically (and I've heard this from anecdotal encounters as well as in this book) is that it is the polar ideological opposite of communism. I always found that odd given how each (using the most obvious examples, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany) employed their maintenance of power looked identical to me. Another typical definitional recitation is that while communism is the control of business by the state, that fascism is the control of the state by business. This, while widely permeated as the correct definition, seems to be the least accurate, according to these historians. Some serious scholars have even argued that "fascism" doesn't even exist (not that the Nazi's weren't guilty of their heinous crimes mind you, just that we've misidentified it as fascism) or that it is primarily a secular religion. Professor Gilbert Allardyce notes that, "we have agreed to use the word without agreeing on how to define it."

So, we're back at square one, how would you define fascism?

To bring the argument into modern day politics the left often accuses the right of being "fascistic", although it's usually a loon or an actor, in other words, lacking in credibility. The irony is that be it smoking bans, trans fat bans, and other forms of political correctness they champion, they cite in language almost identical to Goebbels, that it's for "the good of the country." Although he might use "Fatherland." The Nazi's had bans based on health and laws based on race too. I'm not arguing modern western leftists have anything close to the intentions of the final solution, I just find it ironic that they throw that term at people like me, when individual self determination and liberty - cornerstones of conservatism - are antithetical to fascism as the left has defined it, while their legislative pursuits seem to center on the "collective good", which is a clearly identifiable aspect of "fascism." In terms of what we would recognize as old European forms of fascism, conservatism, with an ideology based on the individual's freedom and self determination and whose worth is not determined at birth, seems radically liberal. In reality, within the US, fascism has simply come to mean anything the left dislikes politically.

Moving on to aspects such as militarism and super, state promoted patriotism, there is no bigger champion of the Americanized version of these "fascistic" characteristics then FDR, yet he is the left's pristine model of proper executive governance. And it should be noted that whether it be Chavez's Venezuela, Castro's Cuba, or Stalin's Russia, militarism and state sponsored or "mandated" patriotism are hallmarks of leftist regimes the world over. Mussolini and Hitler are hardly the only purveyor that history has as an example. And what of Near Eastern theocracies? Doesn't Iran qualify? And to a great extent Saudi Arabia by all accounts and definitions? They are theocracies, but certainly fit the description, "a radical third way" of governing, and then some.

Add to this confusion my personal encounter with the chair of USM's department of political science. She explained to me that I must stop looking at the political ideological landscape as a straight line with each side ending in the extremism of either communism on the left or fascism on the right. Instead, she insisted, "it is a circle." At the bottom of that circle you have, with virtually no distinguishable space between them, Republicans on the right, and Democrats on the left. Then if you follow each around this circular line you end up at the top with communism and fascism sitting beside each other with virtually no distinguishable space between them. This is why their tactics are so closely aligned. Their ideologies may center among different themes but in practice they are virtually identical.

I will now offer what I believe to be the most accurate definition, but before I do the name of the book is Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. As you might of gathered it is a historical argument which seeks to point out that all of the aspects most commonly associated with the term "fascism" are readily found amongst American liberals (while going to great lengths to point out that their intentions are pure i.e. "I'm not calling them Nazis.")


Ryan's Dictionary, First Edition, Circa 2008.

Fascism - (adj) a despotic form of governance that centers around a particularly expressed ideology or theme.

Accepting this definition would mean that Stalin's Russia was not the ideological opposite, but rather a form of fascism. Think about it like an FBI peg board that has a mafia family arranged according to rank with the Don atop and all others branching out beneath him. That "Don" is fascism in my view with every form of dictatorship, oppressive ideology and undemocratic forms of government held within his tentacles beneath. This covers Nazism, into communism, through to Wahhabism. And, if I do say so myself, it is a much more accurate description then what each of those leading historians recited, combined.

Oh, so NOW he's a fiscal conservative ...

7 years in and finally the president threatens his veto pen during the SoTU if congress doesn't reduce their pet projects (ear marks) by 50% when they send him spending bills. I commend him on the war with Islamo-fascists & taxes, but spending and the border - oy vehy. What I found particularly curious was his new executive order which by the stroke of his pen directs all aspects of government to "ignore" increases in these projects or anything over the 50% reduction from 2007. Can he do that? So let me get this straight: congress sends him a bill, he signs the bill with the pork barrel add ons included in order to get the bulk issue through (say, military budgets that have aid for mussel farmers) then forbids the pork barrel (above the 50%) to become a reality via an executive order. If this is both possible and lawful then why not have done this all along instead of unsuccessfully attempting to pass a line item veto power? It seems a bit odd to me. So the agriculture secretary literally "ignores" a legally binding mandate because his boss says to and cuts a check for half the provided amount? This seems quite odd to me. I like what its effect will be in spending, don't get me wrong, but there seems to be a division of powers fight brewing here somewhere, I would think.

"The eye that alters, alters all."

There are several things I wanted to get to, and will in subsequent posts; however, this must be addressed IMMEDIATELY.

None of the GOPs, if elected, will over-turn Roe v Wade, and none will do any more than follow the "surge" through, then abandon Iraq to it's own fate.

That's it, I've had it. I am so fed up with you pro-life poser Democrats. You're absolutely full of it. Must I recite the ways a president affects abortion? First, a President Obama will reinstate federal funding for Planned Parenthood which promotes and preforms abortions all around the world. And his willing same party Congress will no doubt oblige him - that should run US abortions up in the hundreds of thousands by itself. Secondly his socialized medicine health care will include coverage for abortions on demand, and as with all things that become "free" they will increase. And again, with a Democrat controlled Congress it will have a real opportunity to pass. There's another 1,000,000 or so dead babies on that initiative alone, each year.

Thirdly, at least two Supreme Court seats are said to likely be vacated in the next 4 to 8 years. And President Obama, with his Democrat Congress, will pull out their trusty ACLU alumni hand book and put in two justices to the left of Lenin, ensuring the two million plus a year genocide will continue for at least two more decades. Whereas if a president Romney et al could get two justices on a court that is currently a 5 to 4 pro-choice group, the math becomes quite favorable. What will the court look like with two more constructionists? It is a false accusation to say that a Republican president "will not overturn" Roe v Wade given that NO PRESIDENT can overturn any decided law. He can however either promote this culture of death via federal funding while protecting abortion rights for the next generation (what's left of them) through his nominees, or he can directly decrease abortions by withholding federal funding and leave Roe v Wade vulnerable to being overturned,via his nominees.

Now you can ignore this, or use some maze of semantics based circular logic all you wish, but lets be honest for a moment. In your heart of hearts you are repulsed by the GOP fiscal platform - you truly believe in wealth redistribution as a means of curing all social ills, and you can't sleep at night knowing that you contributed to their executive win via your vote, thus causing your desperate search of a Democrat with social morals. But since there isn't one you have concocted this fairy tale of the mind which has you diminishing the impact a president has on abortion down to zero as a means of rationalizing your support of an avowed abortionist.

Support him, vote for him, worship him all you want, but we both know it's because your swooning at his verbal excellency, Sir Barak, combined with this traditional disdain for the GOP has overtaken any concerns you have about abortion. THAT is why there exists this flawed rationalization concerning presidents having no impact -because you can't come to terms with the reality of your primary concerns. My advice is to admit you're pro choice and be done with it. Either way this "pro life Democrat" pattern of "rationalizing" your support for out and out pro abortionists (like Catholics voting for Kennedy in Massachusetts), due to your solidarity on fiscal issues, will find safe refuge with me no longer.

At the end of the day voting for Obama or Hillary means you have tossed your lot in with the culture of death and have surpassed endorsing abortion and moved into the realm of enabling it. And I don't know which is worse - that you know full well you're deluding yourself with this "Roe v Wade won't be overturned anyway"amalgam of self deception in order to support an abortionist like Obama, or that you don't know. Disgraceful sir. Just disgraceful.

Texas?

Did I hear Texas? Is that where you’re going for this deployment?

Man, if you are going to end up at Sheppard AFB… and if you’ve never been there before… then you HAVE to go to the Whiskey River Saloon!

I HATE country music, okay? Don’t misunderstand me here… but this is a frigging GREAT joint! Endless selection of beer… and if you enjoy a good pint of stout, they pour it perfectly! As long as you can get past the music (which is Willie Nelson from start to finish), it’s a great place to get hammered.

Hot girls, too! WOW…

Right off of Interstate 44 (if memory serves… the main North-South corridor through town, anyway), maybe 3 miles out of the main gate.

LOL… hard to believe I can even remember that night, knowing how much Guinness I tossed back! Sheesh…

Have fun, stay safe.

Call it what you want...

School, deployment, redundant training allowing MstSgt Loser to coast on the military equivalent of a forty minute string for the next few weeks, but Bad Boy is rolling out tomorrow for his five month assignment.

It's bad enough I'm stuck with a complete absence of challenging, humorous and combative conversation, (at the END of football season no less! What AM I going to do?) but if he's not able to post, I'm going to get cheesed.

It's not like he's going overseas. He should have Internet access somewhere. And while he's coasting through the easy part of school, (phase one, I believe we discussed) he should have plenty of time. Damn it.

Drive careful. Post when you can. See you in June.

SotU Address

Bush looked relieved, and Pelosi looked like she was on drugs. Cheney seemed to be having trouble keeping awake, and Clinton looked ready to cry... again.

It's unfortunate that coverage of this speech can't allow a split-screen view of the Chamber... one on the President and another on the Congress. The break away views of the whole Chamber were too far out to really get an idea for who was applauding and who wasn't... but I thought it telling that Clinton did so little standing, while Obama did so much. I think I counted four times when Pelosi stood up, and Kennedy may have stayed on his ass the entire speech.

This was his most bi-partisan speech yet, with his only promise of a veto coming about raised taxes and increased numbers of ear-marks. That means he's ready to wrap it up, I think... he's glad this is his last one. He certainly laughed and joked more in this one than any other, didn't he?

His biggest mistake in my eyes? Not selling what his Administration has accomplished enough, and focusing too much on things that he WON'T accomplish before he is out-of-office. I see the reasoning, but this was a big chance for the man to shape his legacy... or to begin to, anyway. Why not take a hand in how history will view your Presidency ASAP? Reagan did... Clinton did... Bush should have.

Too quiet here...

So let me stir the shit and see what floats to the top, okay?

A couple of points, just to draw out some comments from the crowd:

• I hate the term "conservative" when it is used to describe Republicans.
• I am convinced that this "rebate" that is supposed to stimulate the economy is the second biggest waste of Federal money and effort EVER.
• I am going to vote for Obama.

Now, the details of my points...

Conservative.

What do Republicans think is "conservative" about their agenda? To be "conservative", one must strive to maintain the status quo in a political society, correct?

Republicans say they want lower taxes AND a balanced budget, but have never been able to manage EITHER for more than 2 years at a time. Add to this the simple historical fact that, since Hoover was in the White House, NO President has managed to "balance" a Federal budget (meaning see it happen while he's in office) except William J. Clinton. This particular balanced budget was so successful that it generated an actual surplus in less than 3 years.

Republicans say they want smaller government, but (again), no President since Hoover has managed it... even as much as beating the rate of government growth by even one year's rate. There is the slightest chance that Bush Jr. might have managed it in his first term, except for one small policy... HOMELAND SECURITY. His (and Rummy's) drive to reduce the size of our military in his first term was surely overshadowed by the monstrous behemoth that is Homeland Security. 5 years after its inception, Homeland Security has failed in its intelligence role at least as many times as it has succeeded (Iraqi WMDs, Iraqi insurgent capabilities, the capture and prosecution of al Quieda and bin Laden, increased capabilities and security at the border, Iran's level of threat to US, Iran's ability to pursue a WMD program, et cetera) while at the same time increasing the size of our government by nearly 18%... this isn't taking into account the COST of such a department, either. I haven't yet seen a budget breakdown that "adds" up all the DoHS agencies into one figure.

They say they want to see America's defense capabilities strong and ready for action, yet since Reagan's time in office, the GOP has watched (or directed) the reduction of our armed forces by nearly 19% in 20 years ('88 to '08), and that is just in manpower figures! Under Bush, the Navy's seen 41 NEW surface platforms cut from the budget, while the Army has seen 31 BRAC closings ALONE and a forced retirement of more than 65,000 prime, experienced veterans since 2002.

I'm curious as to which of the GOP candidates is actually going to run his campaign on the promise of maintaining THIS status quo?

The Rebate.

How many people actually believe that giving Americans $1,600 means they are going to invest that money in Fortune 500 stocks? Unless they do, then at least 64% of everything they DO buy with that money will go to foreign pockets... not American. That's plasma flat screens, video game platforms, and down-payments on new cars (the three top poll answers as to what people will buy with the money). That won't even improve ONE QUARTER worth of fiscal returns... let alone kick-start an economy that is now in its 3rd quarter of recession.

Now, how much of a BOOST would the economy get if that same "revenue" was used to offset Federal gasoline taxes, or used to subsidize domestic oil production costs, or if it was given as a home-heating/energy deduction for ALL income levels? $150 billion would buy an awful lot of gas and diesel fuel, which would lower the costs of goods and production ACROSS THE BOARD, rather than only perking up (maybe) the sale of non-durable goods and services in this country for about 1 week, don't you think?

Would you be more inclined to spend a little extra at Wal Mart if you saw gas go down by $.35 a gallon... or would a one-time-only refund check get you in the mood to buy compulsively? Me? I think I'll pay off my credit cards, or put some heating oil in the tanks, or maybe even bank it, knowing that when Congress fails to make the Bush tax cuts permanent... then TAXES WILL GO UP! How dumb do you have to be to fail to see THIS Band-aid for exactly what it is?

Obama.

Say what you will... this guy has character. He is as charismatic as Bill Clinton ever was, and is 100% more so now. He actually answers questions when he is asked them, and hasn't stumbled a bit with all the mud-slinging the Dems have managed since Iowa. Hillary has Bill's foot in her mouth nearly every day, and Edward's says nothing at all. Barring something HUGE on Super Tuesday... Obama is the top Dem right now, no question.

Can I support him? He is pro-abortion, very anti-Iraq War, and hasn't impressed me as overly committed to strong international military resolve... but no GOP candidate has impressed me in these regards, either. All three of the biggies (Romney, McCain and Huckabee) fail here in my eyes, and Paul is out of the question. Giuliani is the only real choice for me as a candidate (now that Thompson is out), but he won't win the nomination. None of the GOPs, if elected, will over-turn Roe v Wade, and none will do any more than follow the "surge" through, then abandon Iraq to it's own fate. None have promised to do anything more than offer pre-election lip-service to issues like border security, increased conventional forces at home and abroad, comprehensive immigration reform, serious tax reform (other than Paul, and he's not a contender)... and what little they have said will never get past a Democratically-controlled Congress anyway. All have, in one way or another, endorsed this blatant attempt by a very nearly USELESS Congress to buy themselves back into office... which by itself is a strike against all of them.

So, can I support Obama?

How refreshing would it be to see a President that offered some promise? Some hope of a new point of view in DC? A fresh perspective from the Oval Office? I think that after 6 years of growing distrust and resentment from all corners of the American public, that it would be damn nice.

From what I have heard to date, I am beginning to think I CAN support Obama.

So there!

Shift change...

Yesterday, the casino I work at here in NEPA fired the idiot-loser they had hired as the shift boss on Swing. The reasons are many, and quite varied, but the nuts and bolts of the matter?

I'm going back to swing!

That's right... no more 11 pm to 7:30 am for THIS Katrina refugee! I'll be living large working the 3 pm to 11:30 pm shift... with Thurs-Fri off.

Don't know when... and don't really care. It's such a weight off my back to know I am NOT going to be stuck on this shift till Aug!

I feel so good right now, I feel the need to quote a rather faous episode of MST3K for all you Mysties out there....

"Someday, all you SPACE LOSERS are going to be working for ME!"

Must read...

It's long. It's detailed. It's worth it.

Wall Street Journal article

I'll have to re-read the NIE on Iran again... but the analysis by this journalist is seemingly without bias and objective in the extreme.

If the conclusions made here are true, then I'd have to say that my assessment of the threat posed by Iran to the West in general and the US specifically was fairly accurate.

Scary thought.

This was good ...

Typically I would just throw out a link for whomever wishes to follow. However, I found myself grinning and even laughing out loud at this 2007 year in review article, so I pasted it here. This is exactly what the Bund would produce were we given a national column in Newsweek.

"Ready, Fire, Aim"

by George Will


In 2007, came the revolution. Determined to end the war in Iraq and begin the reign of justice in America, Democrats took over Congress and acted on the principle "ready, fire, aim." They threatened to tell the Ottoman Empire (deceased 1922) that it should be ashamed of itself (about Armenian genocide) and raised the minimum wage to $5.85, which is worth less than the $5.15 minimum was worth when it was set in 1997. Onward and upward with compassionate liberalism: The Democrat controlled Senate flinched from making hedge fund multi-millionaires pay more than a 15 percent tax rate. At the year-end, there were more troops in Iraq than there were at the year's beginning. Although it was not yet possible to say the war was won, it was no longer possible to say the surge was not succeeding. The McClatchy Newspapers, with the media's flair for discerning lead linings on silver clouds, offered this headline: AS VIOLENCE FALLS IN IRAQ, CEMETERY WORKERS FEEL THE PINCH.

The King of Spain told the president of Venezuela to "shut up" and 51 percent of Venezuelans seconded the motion. Rudy Giuliani said, "I took a city that was known for pornography and licked it." Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of having been ambitious in kindergarten. Disraeli once said of Lord Russell: "If a traveler were informed that such a man was leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the Egyptians worshipped an insect." Mike Huckabee became a leader among Republican presidential candidates.

In March, when a planned trek by two explorers to the North Pole, intended to dramatize global warming, was aborted because of temperatures 100 degrees below zero, an organizer of the consciousness-raising venture explained that the cancellation confirmed predictions of global warming because "one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability." Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize that should have gone to nine-time Grammy winner Sheryl Crow, who proposed saving the planet by limiting—to one—"how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting." At the U.N. global-warming conference in Bali there was Carbon Footprint Envy—the airport did not have space to park all the private jets.

As Americans debated expanding government involvement in health care, Britain's National Health Service told Olive Beal she would have to wait 18 months to get her hearing aid. She is 108.

Thanks to federal supervision of K through 12 education, when a Johnson City, N.Y., parent complained that cheerleaders lead cheers for the boys' basketball team but not the girls', the U.S. Department of Education, citing Title IX's requirement of sexual equality in scholastic sports, demanded equal "promotional services." Two Los Angeles teachers were fired after a controversy that began when one had her class, during Black History Month, make a presentation about Emmett Till, the Chicago 14-year-old who was tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955 after his wolf whistle at a white woman. Some students and teachers charged that school officials said Till's whistle could be construed as sexual harassment. In an inexplicable (and probably temporary) spasm of good taste, public opinion sent Don Imus packing because he said on his radio program something no more tasteless than things he had been saying for years, to the delight of a large (and evidently fickle) public.

A Seattle day-care center banned Lego building blocks because the beastly children "were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys, assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society." The center reinstated Legos but allowed the children to build only "public structures" dedicated to "collectivity and consensus." In other lingering reverberations of communism, scientists unearthed what they think are remains of two more of Czar Nicholas II's children murdered by Bolsheviks, who never played with Legos. A Cuban exile, former CIA operative and Bay of Pigs veteran announced plans to auction what he says is a lock of Che Guevara's hair taken from the corpse before burial in Bolivia.

When the Confederate monument in Montgomery, Ala., was desecrated, was that a "hate crime"? Saying he wanted to bring Alabama "into the 20th century"—the 21st would be a bridge too far?—a legislator, worried that "a shower head" might be illegal, moved to repeal the state's ban on the sale of sex toys. A mayor looked on the bright side of his city's high homicide rate: "It's not good for us but it also keeps the New Orleans brand out there." Lucky Belgium has been without a government since June.

In 2007, for the first time, two Hispanic surnames, Garcia and Rodriguez, were among America's 10 most common. Paul and Teri Fields of Michigan City, Ind., named their baby boy Wrigley.

Death, as it must to all, came to Paul Tibbets, 92. Eighty years ago, 12-year-old Paul flew with a barnstorming pilot who dropped Baby Ruth candy bars over a Florida racetrack. In 1945, Tibbets was pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. "What about the shortstop Rizzuto," asked Casey Stengel long ago, "who got nothing but daughters but throws out the left-handed hitters in the double play." Phil Rizzuto, the oldest living Hall of Famer, was 89. Emma Faust Tillman, 114, of Hartford, Conn., had been the world's oldest person. She was born during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. Robert Adler, 93, gave the modern world its most beloved invention. The TV remote, of course.

Lets play a game ... Ryan's try.

Before I get into what I originally started this post about, a bit of tragic news this morning. I remember eye's rolling over the movie "The Patriot." The Gibson reenactment (or attempt there of) of portions of our revolution. Well, the young actor whom played his oldest son, Heath Ledger, was found dead this morning in his Manhattan apartment. Titus no doubt knows him from Broke Back Mountain, but I digress.... fame, fortune, looks, this kid has everything yet felt he needed the escape of drugs (which has been implicated as the culprit). Tragic. I guess every generation has their "James Dean."

Now to the post ....

Let's clear some things up first. A) It was a fair enough question - why would I endevour to meet the epitome of sleazy politicians the world over, William Jefferson Clinton, and not one James Earl Carter who while an utter one term failure as president was at least honest in his dealings as CiC? The answer is two fold. One - it's personal with Clinton. He was president as I was becoming a young adult (I "graduated" HS in 1994 - that'll make you both use an explicative I'm sure). I became politically aware under him, started listening to Rush under his term, and was first legally able to vote in his 1996 bid for a second term - so meeting him is for me meeting the guy for which you saw as THE political opposition in all your formative years ... I simply couldn't pas up the opportunity to look the (politically speaking) "enemy" in the eye. Secondly, yes, Carter was "honest" when compared with Clinton. Who isn't? However, my personal distaste for the man has come with his behavior in his post presidency. Yes, I have always been aware of his failings as president, that's a matter of history. But if he had kept his mouth shut as is the unwritten protocol for all former CIC's (Bill's wife is running currently so his speaking out is a given), then I would simply regard him as an honest failure. This, unfortunately for him and every third world citizen living under the thumb of a despot for which Carter certified the election, is not the case. He travels to Cuba and praises the literacy rate as a tribute to Fidel's leadership. Talks about Chavez as a revolutionary thinker. Suggests that private citizens should find a way to finance HAMAS (after the Palestinian election) if the US government under Bush fails to do so (hello shades of Iran/Contra) and publishes a book entitled "Peace Not Apartheid" comparing (with its very title) Israel's actions of self preservation (while surrounded by 800 million people that want to push them into the Red Sea) to the actions of the South African "Jim Crow" style of government. Never mind that the government with the MOST freely elected Arabs - IN THE WORLD - is the Israeli Kanessa. Put simply this is a man whom acts in every facet of his life as if he is embarrassed of America, her constitution, and Lady Liberty herself. I truly think that because of America’s overwhelming choice of Reagan over he, and the way any objective historian has dealt with his tenure that he has a personal psychological dislike of the average American tattooed on his brain and at every turn he wishes to lecture him on the failings of a system and very land which the avearge American has a patriotic investment. I'm the last to defend Clinton, and save Carter I like him the least, but at least the worst sins in his post presidency have been knocking Obama and making me late from break.

****

On Thompson's "fair tax" Titus seems to be advocating. Are you familiar with what that is? It's also called the consumption tax. This is the initiative that would have individuals keeping their entire pay check, no taxes whatsoever, and would implement a 23% sales tax on every transaction save "necessities" such as bread, milk, etc. Neil Bortz has written a book describing its successful implementation which among other things explains how this tax would bring the entire underground economy (drug dealers, prostitutes etc) into the tax system via their inevitable purchases. I mention this only because I was shocked to hear you speak of it in positive terms Titus. Its advocacy is among only the MOST conservative, or right of the isle if you wish, members of my party. Having heard you lament over the Bush tax cuts (which are not "for the rich" but for anyone paying income taxes, which those below the poverty line do not via their return) it seems odd that you would advocate something that goes much further then anything Bush has even considered.

****

I've always been uncomfortable with tagging Romney as a "flip flopper" over abortion. And not because I support his candidacy but because I have listened to him describe his very personal conversion due to events that happened in his private life. But more then that, even if it were due to political expediency if we, in the pro-life movement, are going to excoriate every former pro-abortionist for switching to our side then will they be more or less likely to "see the light?" Isn't this EXACTLY what we want as pro-lifer's? Public officials, especially those seeking the highest office in the land and whom can most impact it via Supreme Court nominees, coming to our side and then governing that way? Or is it the case that if you're once pro-choice you can never be accepted by us? That's a dangerous trend to set in my estimation. If we truly want change in this area then we should reward every public officials that switches with our support in at least that area rather then trying to hit him with snickering tags such as "flip flopper."

****
I had to mention this. Obama is catching heat for praising Reagan. He was asked about being the (possibly) first black president, and whether that placed a special burden on his presidency and he noted that he wanted to lead a "movement" of all Americans in an optimistic fashion "the way Ronald Reagan and FDR did, and the way Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not." OUCH! Of course Billy boy started to go down the road, in response, about his impact on America versus Reagan's and even he had to quickly move off that subject - his impact versus Ronnie? Please .... if I want fiction I'll watch Star Trek or An Inconvenient Truth.

****

Carter .... well, what would president Moore have done? Titus, you have layed out a much stronger posture, heavy on military consequences, that suited me just fine. I could lay out my own scenario but it would so closely mimic yours it would seem as if I simply cut and pasted it. Suffice it to say I think your targeting Iranian military targets along the Iraqi border, thus leaving them more or completely vulnerable to Saddam's ambitions is very smart. They would claim collateral damages as if you would have hit Tehran either way, but you sleep at night knowing they're full of sh**. Moving forward to the infrastructure, desalinization plants, etc, all spot on and would have hearkened back to the days of when a subject of the British Crown was murdered or held captive by a foreign government (especially one with a port) their shores would be relentlessly shelled until justice had been satisfied. Had the peanut farmer followed this course we may well have not had a president Reagan sworn in, in 1981. But of course Carter was as pathetic as America has ever mustered to send to the Oval office and even then he barely edged out the man whom had just pardoned Richard Nixon for goodness sake.

****

Cheer up my friend, I know the Packers lost and you have no optimism vested in whomever wins in November, but each time America has found herself in dire need of real leadership, she has produced one, whether they seemed to be our national savior at first or not. And here is a bit of good news: abortions in the US are at their lowest rate (for 2005) in 30 years. It is still of genocidal proportions, 1.2 million for that year, but that's 400,000 less then in 1990, and as I said the lowest rate since 1974. In typical fashion pro-choicers note that it may be due to harder access to clinics, i.e. under a Republican administration. That's absolute nonsense as researchers note the two largest factors are increased use of contraception and "changing attitudes on abortion." Google it for the complete report and although it may not be "good" news (being the 1 mil plus is still occurring) but it is definitely BETTER news.
FR

*sigh*

Call it a little "post traumatic" episode stemming from the Packer's defeat at the hands of a very mediocre field-goal kicker on Sunday night, but I'm feeling pessimistic.

I have, of course, been following the election news headlines and feature stories on the cable and network news channels. There is so very little that is NEW, though... do you notice that?

I'd be willing to give really good odds that upon the outcome of this upcoming election, we will see no fundamental change in such "vital" areas as immigration, tax reform, health care and abortion (the last isn't even a factor in this election, is it?). Rhetoric and promises will fly till November, but once that new CIC is sworn into office in Jan. of '09, all drive and incentive to follow through will dry up like a garden slug in the Sahara.

No comprehensive restructuring of the Federal tax code, no security fence along the Mexican border, no national insurance coverage policy, and no attempt to curb or end the legal elimination of unwanted human children.

No... I am quite confident that regardless of party or politics, the winner in '08 will be addressing the same issues again in '12. Mark my words, keep them safe... the famous "Croc Dollar" is up for grabs with this bet.

Let's play a game... Jambozi's try.

I won't argue with you concerning foreign policy. Had Carter acted immediately the situation would have been different. That is a military action we COULD have done, unlike the rescue attempt a year later that, even without the crash, we could NOT have done.

My spin on this game is slightly different. The malaise that was the Carter Legacy began well before Nov. 4 1979. The economy was already tanking. Carter, whom several historians have labeled as the last New Deal President, was placing band-aids on an economy dying of dehydration. (His label as a new deal president? Bunk. But I'm already on record as saying that so we'll move on.) His very persona was not one that fired the imagination, stoked one's patriotism and made a person happy to be alive. (Almost exactly like his VP in 1984.) But even crippled with a personality that made Hoover look like Jay Leno, had he used fed money to "stimulate" the economy instead of trying to band-aid it with social spending (raw pandering to the party, but I digress) the malaise would have passed. What happens in the late seventies is a recession no different than 1987, 1991-2, or 2000-01. Having personally lived through all of those, I can say with 1st person experience, I never lost optimism then. I saw a complete lack of optimism in 1977-78-79. And that leads directly to the domestic agenda and the desk of Jimmy Carter.

One final note on Titus' surgical strike idea in 1979? I'm not at all certain as to the accuracy of period weaponry but I have complete confidence in the US Navy's ability to place ordinance on targets. Two carrier strikes could do the trick, even with A-6 and old F-14 platforms.

Let's play a game... Titus' Try

Okay, I suggested this, so I'll start.

It is October, 1979... and Thomas Foster is President of the United States. The Shah of Iran, currently in exile and living in one country after another, has requested that he be allowed to receive treatment for his lymphomic cancer at John Hopkins. I allow the visit on the condition that he leave as soon as he is medically able to do so (the same conditions history provides).

Prior to this allowed visit, the de facto government of Iran had made no directly hostile or aggressive policies or statements to the US, other than a general hatred for all things "western". However, once the Shah was allowed into the country, demonstrations were staged on a daily basis calling for the extradition of the Shah to Iran for trial and execution. These demonstrations became more and more hostile and violent as they progressed.

On Nov 4, 1979, the demonstrators storm the US Embassy in Tehran, taking (ultimately) 52 American hostages. These hostages were not kept together in the same place, rather they were spread out over a large area of Tehran.

Here is what most analysts and historians feel happened next:

The Iranians had no intention of keeping the hostages for an extended period of time. It was only after the prolonged inaction of the Carter Administration that induced the Iranians to extend their hostage efforts over a longer time frame.

So, the first thing I would have done as President is demanded the unconditional release of those 52 Americans within 24 hours to another foreign service... say the Canadians or the French (both had embassies in Tehran capable of doing the exchange)... and failing that, to expect military action to be made on a regular schedule until they were released. It was appearent from the start that the "students" were being supported by the government, so the government was responsible for the actions (and it's own reactions) to the students.

Now, me being me, I'd have hesitated to put civilian populations at undo risk... so bombing attacks in major cities would be out of the question. However, we had the capacity to launch cruise missles at military targets placed along the Iraqi border with Iran. Iran had an entire armored division staged on the border, with all available fuel and munitions with it. Release the hostages, or know that large segments of your frontier security forces, facing an increasingly belligerent neighbor (Iraq), would be at serious risk. These missles strikes could have been launched from the Gulf by American naval forces already in theater, with no risk to themselves.

If that didn't convince the Iranians that I (as PotUS) was damn serious... then national infrastructure targets of opportunity would be selected next... say the de-salinization plants located on the Persian Gulf coast of Iran, or particularly large and accessible military airfields or production facilities. These targets do, of course, constitute real threats to civilian lives... but it is a matter of fact that the actions of the Iranian government, directly or through the proxy of the student-radicals, justified the risk... in my eyes.

Prior to this crisis, the "sanctity" of international embassies in all actions diplomatic and military was intact. A foreign embassy was seen as foreign "soil", and in storming the embassy, the radicals had invaded and accosted US territory. That means, if the Iranian government did nothing to address the problem, then they were complicent in the attack, and were justifiably responsible for the act themselves. This was true of the Serbians in WWI, and it was true of the Taliban 20 years later... the problem is in your backyard, so FIX IT or we will.

I feel the measures I have outlined here are perfectly justifiable, and would have gotten us the results we wanted very rapidly. In fact, Reagan empoyed a very similar strategy against Lybia only a few years later... and got the results he wanted within 14 days.

The real pisser about all this, in the view of an historical outlook, is that Carter wasted this chance. The Soviets were all tied up with Iraq... in fact, more than 80% of all the equipment that the Iranians had came from either the US or the UK... M60A1 MBTs (with half again as many Chieftain MBTs), American artillery and APCs, British helicopters... we KNEW what the Iranians were capable of prior to the Iraqi invasion because we gave them their stock! We KNEW where everything was because we helped BUILD IT. The Shah's recognition of Israel had gained him (an,thus, the Army) a supply of Israeli small arms and AA guns (shoulder-launched stuff, but we knew the capabilities), but no amount of posturing on the part of Khomeini would get them to side with him. A few well-placed strikes on hardened military targets like ammo bunkers and concrete fighter hangers would have done wonders to soften the Iranians in the eyes of the Soviets, the Iraqis, and the Israelis... all a good thing, in the long run.

No, I don't doubt and can't argue that Carter's "soft-shoe" approach to this crisis was a huge failing on his part. Decisive, aggressive action would have gotten more results in 3 weeks than his actions and policies got in 444 days.

That's what I would have done.

Let's play a game...

We'll call it the "Foreign Policy Game", okay? Here's how we'll play:

On this day, in 1981, 52 Americans were released from 444 days of forced captivity in Iran. Let's see what each of us would have tried to do, had WE been in the White House at the time of the crisis and not James Earl Carter. Here's the rules...

We can only assume to "use" technology and resources available to the President at the time of the crisis. Thus, because "smart-bomb" technology was in its infancy, we cannot advocate the surgical removal of specific targets by single-plane attacks that we don't KNOW (empirically speaking, that is) were a resource of the administration and the military in 1980.

We can assume that the President of the United States had far more information available to him THEN than anything available to the public or media THEN, so let's feel free to make assumptions based on information available only NOW. Example: Iraq hadn't invaded Iran at the time of the hostage taking, but the signs were there for months prior to the actual invasion. We should not hesitate to employ the information we have now concerning the state of international affairs, simply because it hadn't happened yet. In short... play the Monday-morning quarterback to your heart's content.

I would ask that any assumptions on international assistance or good-will be backed with evidence of same. While it might be safe to take for granted the good-will and assistance of the UK during the crisis, would unilateral carpet-bombing of Tehran (if that is our determined course of action in this study) by the US be supported by West Germany, or France? Or even the UK? If you assume it to be so, then be ready to support the assumption is all I ask.

The reason for this little intellectual exercises?

Ryan got me thinking through the post concerning his "boner-inducing" encounter with Slick Willy Clinton outside the EDR, and his comment that had Carter been there instead, he wouldn't have walked 10 feet to shake his hand. Ryan's contempt for the former CIC is well known, of course... for his conduct while President as much as for his conduct after. My position has always been that, while Carter has the legacy of failed policy covering his term from start to finish, his abilities as a President were at least AS scrupulous and honest as anything Bill Clinton managed to accomplish in his TWO terms, if not abundantly MORE SO. To hold such contempt for the man and his legacy as PotUS, while allowing for the determined dishonesty of another's is contradictory at best.

So, what would YOU (read any of us) have done differently?

Let's hear it.

On Romney...

You know what I think?

He spends far too much time PANDERING.

If he is doing it to "appeal" to the average American, then he is wasting his time and squandering his opportunity to gain ground and momentum across his voting base. If he's doing it to appeal to moderates, then he's making himself look an awfully lot like Hillary.

Say what you will about Paul and Giuliani and McCain, but they do far less pandering than Romney does. They just don't have the charisma that Mitt has.

If I had to back a GOP candidate, it would still be Thompson. I really liked what he said in regards to the economy last week, he is as plain-spoken and clear on defense and national security as you could hope, and he is the ONLY candidate that has openly stated that blanket tax cuts are NOT the answer, but that comprehensive tax reform IS. His "fair tax" answers are the closest thing I can see to a viable, implementable answer to how best to keep money in the public's pocket AND keep a functional flow of needed revenue coming into the Federal coffers. He hasn't (to my knowledge) said he wouldn't push to make the Bush tax-cuts permanent... but it isn't a position he is basing a large portion of his platform on, either. Bush's tax cuts are not going to square off with his "fair tax" plan, after all... if he wins.

THAT'S the problem... I just don't think Thompson has the personality and charisma to win a general election... let alone the primary. He isn't the "best looking" of the bunch, by a long shot. What he does have is face recognition... something he shares with Giuliani. Thompson is "religious" enough for most moderate Americans, without spouting his theological accomplishments the way Huckabee has done, and Romney has been forced to do. He has no history of "flip-flopping", which neither Huckabee nor Romney can say... and no compromise or cross-isle positions like Giuliani has (i.e. abortion).

Again, I think Thompson is missing an opportunity by NOT selling himself as a plain-speaking, right-minded, middle-of-the-road candidate. His background and demeanor tells America he is "one of them", after all. No one looks at Fred and thinks multi-multi-millionaire, do they? They think "guy next door", for God's sake. No one thinks that of Clinton or Romney.

I'm beginning to wonder how best I am going to serve MY interests come the PA primary. As a registered Democrat, I have the opportunity to cast a vote for the Democratic candidate I feel would best represent my interests as President... but I am increasingly unable to consider voting for either Clinton or Obama (the obvious front-runners). I have the opportunity to "write in" a candidate, and PA law makes those write-in votes binding to electors and delegates (if enough are cast), but I know that would be about the same as not voting at all. However, knowing what I know now about the election process, and especially the PRIMARY process, that isn't always a bad thing... because PA bases delegate assignment on percentage of votes gained... not by number of votes gained. Something for me to think about, but not like it is going to decide the issue here in NEPA.

More on the election ...

I failed to mention another critical reason Romney blew out the competition today and it has ramifications for the general election. In a word, illegals. There are 4 or 5 what are called "issue shows" in radio throughout Southern California into Nevada all the way to Texas. Want to guess what these hour long, very passionate programs have as their singular theme? From uninsured illegal motorists to states of emergency along the border (from Dem governors as well to show how big a problem illegal "immigration" poses), to hospital ER's being overrun, this is the single biggest political issue, if you take them one by one, that unites voters in the Southwest. It polls around 90% with natural born citizens and 70%, YES 70, with legal immigrants (for obvious reasons, they waited in line). Well for all of the hosts on each of these programs and for all those whose primary issue is this, there is one clear champion in the Congress - Tom Tancredo (R) Colorado. He is the toughest, most articulate elected official on this issue out of all national figures (although he's barely that), and he was running for the GOP nomination up to two weeks ago when he formally dropped out (although his name was still on the ballot/caucus tally here). Well, guess who he endorsed upon dropping out? Mitt Romney. And he went on all these programs to let people know. I think that, in this region of the country, was more decisive then the organized Mormon vote - you don't beat your closest rival by 40% on Mormonism alone, let me assure you. I think this issue & Tancredo's endorsement now puts Romney in play for CA, NM & TX over Guliani on super Tuesday, and if he wins those that's game set and match. And at that point Rudy better start sending texts to Mitt with the letters V & P enclosed.

On the (registered Republican) Christian vote, The Las Vegas Review Journal exit polling suggests that 94% of Mormons voted for Romney, 25% of evangelicals, and low & behold 29% of Catholics ... he, he. And that's with a Catholic (Rudy) on the ballot to choose from. In fact, given Huckabee, Thompson & McKennedy ... err, I mean McCAIN, split the rest, Romney won the largest percentage of Catholics ... again, he, he.

One other odd occurrence ... apparently the Democrat delegates are split according to geographical districts, not population. So while Hillary won the majority of votes, Obama won slightly more districts and took 13 delegates out of NV to her 12. See if the mainstream press reports that. Primaries are about delegates, not votes. Votes are merely the vehicle, and given that truth, Obama won. It would seem Hillary had a mini 2000 election, just no hanging chads ...
FR

Hangin' with the President...

It was an odd experience ... I was starving and had long (40 minutes dealing plus the drive into work from North Rancho Drive through to Sahara West) planned to hit the EDR (employee dining room), which is separate and afar (in yards & food) from the dealer's break room, which is just off the gaming floor after a few descending steps. Suddenly, 2 minutes from my first break (I took pole on CR 404 @ 1pm at our crew's start), at 1:58 pm my friend (Manchester borne, 56 year old husband to a Russian mail order bride & father to a 3 year old Russo/Anglo beautiful girl, Jim) comes screaming into the Caesar's Palace dice pit exclaiming, "where's Ryan, Ryan where are you." To which I turned just off my right shoulder, having glanced past the gaudy carpet and incompetent floor man to say, "I'm right here." Having reveled in and indulging my good hearted friend in past discussions concerning conspiracy's involving the Brandenburg Hotel & the elite of the world, I knew that he troubled his voice on my behalf for no small matter. "Bill Clinton will be in Cleo's Cafe (our EDR) in a few minutes." I thanked my friend with a healthy "get the hell out of here" and proceeded to clear my hands and go meet our former Commander In Chief along with some eggs over easy (remember I was hungry).

I peered around the corner as I ordered my eggs & placed the 3 1$ bills atop the metal counter. "Is he here yet?", I asked the cook and undoubtedly a Culinary Worker's Union Member. Now I must pause for a moment to explain why his union association and Bill's appearance are not unrelated. Lawyer's representing the Nevada Teacher's Union, and associated with Nevada Democrat politicians endorsing Hillary, filed a law suit declaring the "at large precincts" (that I spoke of in a prior post) which allow casino strip workers to vote based on where they work (rather then where they live) "unfair" to the teachers in NV who can not caucus at their workplace (as if schools are open on Saturday, the Caucus day). And they did so within 48 hours of Obama receiving the Culinary Union endorsement (by far the most lucrative in dollars and foot soldiers Nevada has to offer - 60,000 members in state alone). And that suit lost only hours, in the Las Vegas a.m. that very day, after former President Bill Clinton had already went on early local Las Vegas air to excoriate the 9 precincts named in the law suit. Well .... this was a "mending fences" tour" as all 9 locations he visited this afternoon were those named in the suit. As you may gather, it doesn't take Monica Lewinsky to see the balls on this guy.

At any rate, I was about to leave, due back on the game at 20 after, because this "s.o.b", as I put it, "is running late", as he is infamous for. I wait an extra 5 minutes knowing the guy out next would let me make it up to him, but nada, no show. I go back, promise to make it up to Freddy, he says no sweat, and then 30 minutes later the place is buzzing because he's actually here. So, I tell the floor I have to use the restroom (my end was dead). This may seem unusual to Titus & Jambo, where we're from you go to the bathroom on your break, however, the day shift dice pit is 90% over 55 years old, and probably half over 60 so lighting up a reserve sign & closing a dead end or grabbing a dice dealing mucker to take your spot for an urgent bathroom break is a regular phenomena at Caesar's, and in all pits truth be told. So, I use the ten minutes I know I have to go down there. He was exiting with Magic Johnson (talk about two guys who represent a parable on the dangers of infidelity), and was working the lined up bunch in typical politico fashion - hand shakes & how do ya do's. He came to me, looked me right in the eye and said "hi Ryan" (he read my name tag) as he shook my hand. I replied, "Nice to meet you sir." Then, and you can't make this up, I noticed there were a gaggle (half dozen or so) young, giddy girls behind me with their cells phones out & held up as if to take a picture. So, they start handing them to me one at a time a s I snap a shot of them & slick Willy. Nothing is so surreal as telling the former leader of the free world to "skootch over just a bit, alright, smile." But I did 5 or six times, he thanked me and he moved on down the line as I scurried back to my game .... where the shift boss was waiting for me, the cunt that she is. Now she knows my penchant for politics (of which she is a screaming lib) and knows full well that I left for the restroom under false pretenses. She can't get me for that, she's not going to back up cameras for 10 different hallways and angles, so she slaps a half point on me for being late from break the time before! Now, the dice pit is never touched in this area, they handle their own (late, no shows, etc) as part of tradition given their seniority. Not in this instance. And it occurs to me - the irony in my getting a half point from trying to meet a guy I have venomously attacked for most of my adult life is nearly Shakespearean.

I have gotten a range of text messages from my various family members (GOP to a hundredth percentile - and of the "Christian Right" no less) calling me traitor, saying what the hell, asking why all I said was nice to meet you, and I even got the ominous "heathen" from Titus. To which all I can say is this: I called him exactly what Newt Gingrich did every time he walked into the Oval Office - "sir." I would have loved to give a dissertation on how he sold us out to China, how his personal behavior and lawlessness disgraced a great office and then hit him with the best of my Clinton jokes (that's verbally hit, I don't want to be added to any watch list for any relevant agency reading this). However, in the 5 seconds of greeting and subsequent 1 minute of picture taking I don't think I had the time. Not to mention, I can get fired for being rude to Joe blackjack, I think excoriating a former president at work may have had a bad financial outcome for me.

I know, I know, it sounds like I'm gushing but I'm not. It was just a neat experience. I still wouldn't vote for the guy if you had a gun to my head - Bush 41 or Dole would have been preferable (and obviously more honorable) in my mind, but as I said, I couldn't pass up the chance to meet a former president, no matter how much I dislike him (Carter as an exception of course - I wouldn't walk ten feet to meet that guy).

Well, our caucus was this morning - get a load this: having defined the difference of the two in the past here, I still had no first hand experience with caucusing itself. So, I found my designated location, googled directions and got the start time 3 days ago (it started at 9am). And today at 11:30 I headed over to the High School where it was being held. Too late - caucus ended at 10:15 a.m. "What!?" I exclaimed. It failed to occur to me that in a straw poll - where you literally stand in one area of a room designated for your nominee while they get a head count- that people would not be required to stand there from 9am to 5pm like typical voting. The local precinct organizer is allowed to "call" the vote when he or she thinks they've hit maximum capacity for that room, and apparently that was 10:15. No matter, Romney won that local precinct and is crushing the competition in the state over all as I write.

On that topic it occurred to me - the GOP caucus was at 9a.m. on a Saturday in Las Vegas (the Dems started at 11am all over town - slackers). Now, which one group of voters do you think is the most likely to go to bed sober and early in Vegas on Friday night, and get up early and not hung over on Saturday morning? How about the non drinking, non smoking, non partying past 9pm MORMONS! If I were a Romney strategist I'd request voting be done at 7a.m. in every precinct in every state! And low and behold, he's winning ....

Later ....

Good topic!

Love this kind of crap...

The question isn’t one of “Is it legal?” but instead, are the individual geo-political organs of the USA "sovereign" to begin with?

This is a question that has plagued the US since its inception. The first talk of secession wasn't in the South, and it had nothing to do with slavery. It occurred in 1803 because of the Louisiana Purchase and it happened in New England. It happened again in 1808, 1813, 1814 and finally ended in 1815 with the resolution of the War of 1812.

No fewer than 117 Indian nations/reservations/organizations have declared "independence" from the United States. 71 "counties" in 18 states have declared their independence, including Jones County, MS (which "seceded" in 1859, well before the CSA was formed). Of course, there are the 13 "Confederate States" of the 1860... 11 of which became the Confederate States of America for four years.

In short, since 1790 when the last of the original 13 colonies ratified the Constitution (RI, I believe), all subsequent state entries into the United States have required ratification of the Constitution as part of their "statehood" status. I am of the opinion that this removes the issue of sovereignty from the States, as they have ceded that to the Federal Government through the ability to mint coin, regulate international trade, draft militia and military forces, and apply tariffs and trade taxes across borders. We are not an "organization" of 50 independent "States”, but a single nation of 50 geo-political divisions called "states". The bloodiest conflict in our history was fought to determine this fact as the rule of law.

The secessionist movement of 1860-61 were (nearly) all popular referendum votes held by the eligible voters of 13 states, and the overwhelming majority of 10 of those states was for the removal of said states from the Union (exceptions being the counties of WV, the states of KY and MO, and the panhandle of FL... all had disputed and probably illegal votes). If the question were one of "what do the PEOPLE want?", then secession was it in states like VA, SC, NC, GA, MS, LA, AL, and TX.

BUT, it isn't a question of what the people want, is it? The "Revolutionary War" was NOT a revolution, was it? It was a war of secession. We (the Americans) did not want to over-throw and REPLACE the government of the United Kingdom... we only wanted to secede from it. That being understood, then the "War of Independence" (a far more accurate term) never took into consideration the will of the vast majority of eligible "voters" (read "citizen land-holders") in states like New York, New Jersey and Georgia that WANTED to remain part of the Crown authority. Their fates were in the hands of a few (less than 20) delegates that decided to sign the Declaration of Independence.

An old (and admittedly leftist) adage says "The purpose of Government is to maintain the status quo." If that is the case (and an argument can certainly be made that it is), then until those bonds between people and government are broken, by whatever means, then the status quo remains as it is.

These are the reasons I feel that secession is, in fact, illegal: No "constitutional" recourse for it is to be found. The Declaration of Independence calls for the over-throw (violent, if needed) of tyrannical and unjust government by the governed... but the Declaration is NOT the law of the land. It was the reasoning for the push for Independence in the first place, nothing more. A simple and eloquent justification for a radical change in the status quo.

About the Lakota cause...

Russell Means is a fine portrayer of American Indian heritage in film and TV, and he has some (but not many) very conservative views (he was a Libertarian/Republican VP candidate, after all), and is probably a HUGE Ron Paul supporter right now. None the less, I don't feel he speaks for the MAJORITY of Indians in the reservations in question... not by a long shot. The AIM uprising at Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in the 70s were the acts of 50 or so radical activists with very legitimate concerns and completely illegal means of addressing them. At no point do I think that THEIR actions represented the majority opinion of Indians on the Sioux Nation's reservations. He LOST the bid for the Presidency of the Lakota Nation in every election he has entered into, and failed to win in elections held at other reservations in NM and AZ (bands he wasn't a member of), so I am still not sure how he became the spokesman for this Lakota Independence cause. Someone will have to explain that to me...

I can't imagine a more "autonomous" mode of self-determination than the Indian nations already enjoy... no state obligations or taxes due, only Federal agents and designated Tribal law enforcement have any authority on reservation land, and a non-voting representative party at the United Nations (as part of the Indigenous Peoples of North America Council). No other ethnic segment of American society has these (or anything close to these) freedoms from bureaucratic control and certainly no geo-political segment enjoys that much freedom. The unclaimed settlements given by the US Government in 1980 now total in excess of $1 billion dollars, and they are only unclaimed because no "land" was given with them. Not one of the Lakota reservations in question has taken a PENNY from the Feds in more than 16 years... nothing for welfare, medical benefits, road maintenance, housing allowances, unemployment benefits, tuition reimbursement or loans... not a penny. Since the inception of "Indian gaming", they have not needed a dime, and in fact have FUNDED "state" improvements because the infrastructure at a state level isn't keeping up with that on the reservation (see the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwa Indians, for that example).

That injustices were perpetrated by the Federal government is beyond question, and restitution for those injustices is undoubtedly due, if it hasn't already been given (see the $1 billion sitting in a bank somewhere unclaimed mentioned above)... but what hope could the reservations have of maintaining true "independence" even if it were possible? What means do they have to supply such trifles as fuel, food and security without the aid of the US? Arguments could be made that places like California (already the 6th largest economy on the globe!) could exist quite easily as an independent state… but little more than 400,000 acres spread over 5 states (and not contiguously, either) with a population of less than 25,000 and NO industrial or economic infrastructure? I don’t think so…

Still, James’ question was whether or not the Southern states had the legal right to secede from the Union. As already stated, 10 of 13 states held popular votes that determined without question that the vast majority of citizens wanted to break with the US. The legality of that break was settled four years later at Appomattox. No other question of secession was carried that far, either before or since, so it is our only frame of reference. To allow otherwise, the US would be setting a precedent that is beyond dangerous, it is societal suicide.

I know this is an old, old debate...

But once again it rears its ugly head.

Does, or did, states have the legal right to secede?

I'll keep this minimal because feedback is a must. If you're so interested, googling the Lakota Sioux will lead you to the story, (totally buried, must not rate anything) that the Lakota Nation has seceded from the Union. They cited numerous treaty violations, etc. and said more will be posted as things develop. BadBoy brings this to my attention.

This affects four states over a geographical mass nearly the size of Iraq. (Oddly enough.) So the breakroom hawks immediately say, "Well, the National Guard will take care of this."

I responded as best I could being that break was almost over, and never got to hear the "fruits" of discussion, but the question nags me so I bring it here. The Lakota differ from the southern states first and foremost in the reality of their nationhood before the existence of the United States. The Confederacy could claim no such history. The reasons for the South seceding are well documented, but none of them start with "Violations of the treaty of 1873, or 1825, or 1813." Keep in mind, these are treaties ratified by the Senate. Real treaties. Not some guidelines like the Geneva Convention.

It doesn't help that one of the first places this newly independent nation sends delegates to is Venezuela.

So, was it legal for the southern states to secede?

Why do I even bother???

So, I'm watching the Democrat debate tonight ... oh my goodness, these people can not become Commander-in-Chief. Near the end Brian Williams (the MSNBC host) allowed them each one question of the other (by the way, it was only Obama, Hillary & Edwards, NBC filed suit to keep Kucinich out & was successful). Hillary asked Obama to cosponsor a bill she is introducing that would prevent President Bush from entering into any treaty or formal governmental agreement with Iraq prior to his leaving office, i.e. permanent bases, economic commitments, etc. They both said they found it UNACCEPTABLE that any agreement of his would bind the hands of the next president with Obama noting, "that's contrary to how democracy is supposed to work." How moronic is that? And how moronic must he think the "people" are to nod along with that? A sitting president crafting and proposing a formal arrangement (be it a treaty or anything else), then proposing it to the Congress (when necessary as with a treaty) for ratification is EXACTLY the way our representative republic is supposed to work. I just can't take the level of animus these 3 candidates have towards American success in Iraq. They are political sophists and novices of the first order and any of them are capable of making Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill.... and coming from me, that's saying something.

Also, my boy Romney took Michigan tonight. That makes two second place and two first place finishes (he won a small and little known primary in the mid west who held a very early primary). He now holds the most delegates of any candidate and I think calling him the "front runner" (for now anyway) is appropriate. Did I mention I've been promoting him on our blog since he was at 2% in GOP opinion polls? At any rate, I think watching the Dem debates is about as healthy for my well being as Titus listening to Mike Church.

Odd result for the Dems in Michigan. Hillary wins with 59% (Union state, that was expected), but in second place was "uncommitted" at 30 something %, Kucinich got 4% and Obama & Edwards barely registered (yet Kucinich gets excluded tonight). What the #!!#$%$#?

South Carolina next.... I'll be sure to keep this level of information up since your Killigans soaked brains will no doubt be tallying football scores through the next weeks rather than election results.... he,he.

Campaign Details, etc.

Very nice summary of the reasoning behind a caucus. Your summation showed me several things I didn't know... but none so surprising as the "at large" stuff.

I know that my experience with the "caucus" ritual is very limited. Probably the closest thing I have to compare it to is the "Model U.N." experience from my days at UW. Wisconsin holds a primary, as does Pennsylvania and Mississippi. I recall from my days in "Poli-Sci" at college that the caucus is one of the last vestiges of the "parliamentary" system here in the States, and while it is relatively new to the electoral system of government, it is still a popular local election activity in places like Maine, Mass. and Rhode Island.

All I know for sure is that the states and regions that still employ it are VERY fussy about the "geographic" nature of the operation. In Iowa, people drove for hours to get to one of the 19 caucus centers to participate. As far as I know, there are no considerations for those that might work odd hours or late shifts. I am not 100% sure, but it is my concerted opinion that if allowances are made for particular job sectors or industries, the people and states that instituted this process back in the 60s and 70s feared the label "Soviet" might be applied... because there is a STRIKING similarity between the "proletariat" system of election employed by the Soviets and the caucus system of the US, with the only real difference being that the Soviet system was based solely on where you worked, while our caucus system was geo-political in its make up.

The entire electoral system is constructed to ensure that small, lightly populated states have a proportional voice in the election process to the huge, heavily populated states like Texas and California. A balance between size and population, if you will. Concessions the likes of which you are describing seem to me to defeat this purpose.

I would rather see the State (say, Nevada) deem the process important enough to allow, through legislation, considerations to be made to people and employees that must take time off of work to go to the caucus centers... rather than re-write the caucus system to focus on individual industries like education, health care and hospitality/entertainment (i.e. casinos).

As far as Hillary making a stink about the "little stuff"... please. Nit-picking details and fine-print is a political tradition in this country that dates back to its inception, and in no way do the Clintons have a monopoly on that kind of campaign tool. It is a dedicated and oft-employed function of the process that is taken up by both sides of the isle equally, when viewed over the long-term. Hillary just got a local example started that caught your eye... focus on IL or NH, and you'll find Barack or McCain doing the same thing there over another issue. For God's sake, Jefferson and Adams fought a campaign of hate and rhetoric that lasted for several decades beyond both of their Presidential terms!

One point you brought up that IS a concern of mine is the "faithless elector". This is a member of the Electoral College that, for reasons of their own, refuse to cast their vote according to the dictates of the caucus/primary results. It has happened repeatedly through out our history, but it has never happened to where it actually EFFECTED the result of the election. In both FL in '00 and Ohio in '04, it was the popular vote that determined how the electors would cast thier ballots, but had the popular vote been clear and the electors cast OUTSIDE of the election mandate, then we'd have seen an unprecedented MESS, because I know of NO historical example of the Electoral College failing in its course to elect by a clear majority the President of the US. In years when the losing candidate WON the popular vote, it only meant that the margin by which they WON the states with the largest populations was large enough to cover the margin by which they LOST the smaller, less populated states that (electorially speaking) voted for the other candidate. Thus, win enough of the MidWest and Southhern states, and you don't need CA, TX, FL or NY to win the election, even though those states can give you the majority of the popular vote.

Making Nixon blush ...

Before I get to the subject title I feel compelled to address "sports." In particular, football. "Princess Jasmine comforter?" THAT was friggin hilarious. Good slams aside, it should be noted that I realize that what Howie Long has said is now an American truism, "Baseball may be America's past time, but football is her passion." Fantasy leagues, win/loss charts, point spreads, they blanket our dealer break room this time of year, and Limbaugh can't stop talking about it (apparently he's an ardent Steelers fan). And ironically enough my father is an Illini and Chicago anything (especially "da Bears" and Bulls) super fan. In my teens I was a die hard Micheal Jordan fan - posters, clothes, I played basketball nearly everyday, and any televised Bulls game was can't miss TV. However, after he retired (the second and final time) my interest in sports (outside of the effect Superbowl Sunday has on toke rates) faded away. I remember coming back from break once at the Grand, tapping in on stick and Cramey (sitting box) asking me, "what's the score?" Apparently because of my interest in weight lifting it was assumed I would know such things. I answered, "Well, now I'm really going to disappoint you because I don't even know who's playing." He smiled, tilted his head and knowing my penchant for all things political/historical replied, "Well, I guess there's only so many hours in the day." We both chuckled. Now, that's not to say that people whom have a high opinion of their intellect (like us) simply can't enjoy football or watching sports in general. Obviously the brothers Foster demonstrates this quite well. I remember Jambo trying to explain to me why watching Mike and Mike in the morning was a fantastic and mentally healthy way to start your day, to which I responded, "Yes, because I can't function until I find out what team threw what ball through what apparatus for what score." It's just that being born in Iowa, partially raised in Illinois, then majority raised (and lived as an adult) in MS who has no professional team of any kind, I simply have no vested interest in any given team. And that regional connection, in my opinion, is what embeds that "passion" you football junkies so publicly display. Ironically enough the closest I can get to "pulling" for any one team happens to be the Packers only because Farve IS from my home town (the area at least), and he attended the same university as I, USM. Although if you repeat that in front of my father (remember, a Bears fan) I'll call you a liar to your face. All that aside I simply find it boring - packers win, they don't, whatever. I know that's blasphemy for many, and it's not that football fans are morons, or incapable of more, I'm not an elitist - I realize it's a healthy, cathartic recreational outlet. And organized sports is particularly beneficial to children. But in the words of Austin Powers, "It's not my bag baby." I don't find watching it on TV entertaining in the least. Going to the professional games, as my Dad took me to many a baseball game in Chicago, is a fun experience and one I will share with my kids at some point, but on TV? No thank you. And call me gay or a bed wetter all you want - I still bench press more than the two of you could put together .... he, he.

Now, to the IMPORTANT stuff .....

****

A caucus is:
"a private meeting of members of a political party to plan action or to select delegates for a nominating convention. It is not a secret ballot, you make your checked off selection in the open, and speeches and discussions are allowed and encouraged.

"Whereas, a primary is:
"[an] election held to nominate a candidate for a particular party at a forthcoming election for public office. It is a secret ballot"

Both are technically "primaries", but the latter is a direct primary. You vote, and the candidates get the same percentage of that states delegates as votes they garnered in that election, i.e. McCain won 39% of the votes in New Hampshire so he gets 39% of their delegates at the national convention. The caucus is MUCH more complicated. It's basically (stripped to nuts and bolts) a meeting of party members, and only registered party members, and they vote for the candidate of their choice, however, legally that vote is merely a "suggestion" to the sate party leaders who then decide who to give the delegates to at the national convention. But while the caucus goers selection is not binding, obviously 99.9999% of the time the sate party leaders take that "suggestion" literally and give the candidate the same percentage of delegates as votes they received. I've only heard of one case where the state party leader issued them to a non caucus vote winning candidate and I can assure you their career in political activism ended that very day. Also, at the caucus, theoretically, you can give speeches, hold discussions and your vote is done in view of everyone. In theory it's the local party members weeding through the candidates via discussion, argument and ultimately an open vote until they find one with majority support. In practice it's just a primary with more red tape.

Now, I make this distinction because there is a controversy brewing here in Nevada (our caucus is this Saturday), more specifically in Las Vegas, and even more specific then that, on that famous strip, where I happen work. Several months ago 5 DNC officials approved the NV Caucus rules. Who, where, when, etc was decided. In those rules was a provision for what they called "at-large precincts." Normally where you caucus at (the proper term as opposed to "voting" - in a primary) is determined by where you live. And you can only caucus at that specific location that services the district your home address puts you in. However, the "at-large precincts" are 9 locations on the strip designed to franchise shift workers. The rules (the RNC has virtually identical plans drawn up in this respect) say that if you work within 2 1/2 miles of any of these 9 locations, then you can caucus there as opposed to the one dictated by the location of your residence. So far so good. However, last week Barak Obama received the most lucrative Nevada union endorsement in terms of money and foot soldiers when he was endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union. They are 60,000 strong and their rank and file are at the heart and soul of whom the Democrat machine courts every election cycle - lower wage minorities. In fact, 40% are Hispanics. Hillary had been vying for that endorsement, that was publicly known. Well, on the day Obama came to the strip and accepted the endorsement from the Local 226, lawyers on behalf of the state's Teachers Union filed a law suit attempting to prevent those "at-large precincts" from being used this Saturday. The complaint focuses on what they describe as a disenfranchisement of educators in Las Vegas. They note that teachers can not vote at the school in which they work at. That they must still use the one based on their home address and as such this gives strip casino Democrats an unfair advantage. First off I don't know of any school that is open on Saturday, causing the "unfairness" that they claim is occurring. But much more importantly three of the lawyers filing this suit were on that committee of 5 that originally approved the very rules they now claim are unfair to non-strip Las Vegans. What has suddenly caused this? Well, many of the lawyers who brought this issue to the attention of the teachers union (who are being obviously being used as a rouse here) are senior staff members to top elected officials in NV such as Harry Reid. And nearly everyone of those officials, by the way, have endorsed Hillary. This is a brazen move by her campaign to prevent the Democrat employees on the strip from caucusing for the man they have now endorsed - Obama. And when asked by the Las Vegas Sun who brought this to the attention of the lawyers (who subsequently brought it to the Teacher's Union), those lawyers (remember, 3 of whom are senior staff to politicians endorsing Hillary) declined to comment.

I know Clinton Inc didn't invent political "dirty tricks", but does any one seriously want 4 to 8 more years of this nonsense? I mean really, wasn't the first 8 enough? Even putting Monica and his perjury aside, there's Travel gate, memo-gate, Chinese $50,000 coffees. These people are perhaps the MOST dishonest and crooked bunch since the days of Boss Tweed and that anyone would think that her tears of the other day were about America "falling backward" and not about her reaction to the prospect of losing, is naive to the point of having no ability to reason whatsoever. She's a socialist fascist in the truest sense of the words from wealth redistribution to imposing her "morals" on the rest of us (be it smoking bans, removing candy vending machines from Jr Highs or making trans-fats illegal like the secret ingredient the Colonel was using is cocaine - all of which she supports among a litany of other fascistic demands) - an imposition of "morals" ironically that leftists claim Bush is guilty of just because he's a Christian and backs the Patriot Act. At least with Obama I could argue with the guy and get a beer with after. She'd cut my brake lines before I left for debate and if I still managed to make it, slip a mickey in my Coors Light.

This woman would be an absolute, unequivocal disaster. But that's just my opinion ... and that of ANY sane person who hasn't eliminated the majority of their brain cells through drink as they wear a cheese wedge on their head and mindlessly cheer on millionaires in matching out fits.